Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
Section 192
Diary of proceedings in investigation
(1) Every police officer making an investigation under this Chapter shall day by day enter his proceedings in the investigation in a diary, setting forth the time at which the information reached him, the time at which he began and closed his investigation, the place or places visited by him, and a statement of the circumstances ascertained through his investigation.
(2) The statements of witnesses recorded during the course of investigation under section 180 shall be inserted in the case diary.
(3) The diary referred to in sub-section (1) shall be a volume and duly paginated.
(4) Any Criminal Court may send for the police diaries of a case under inquiry or trial in such Court, and may use such diaries, not as evidence in the case, but to aid it in such inquiry or trial.
(5) Neither the accused nor his agents shall be entitled to call for such diaries, nor shall he or they be entitled to see them merely because they are referred to by the Court; but, if they are used by the police officer who made them to refresh his memory, or if the Court uses them for the purpose of contradicting such police officer, the provisions of section 148 or section 164, as the case may be, of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, shall apply.
Why this exists
This provision continues a rule going back to the Criminal Procedure Code of 1898/1973 (as Section 172 CrPC), designed to make police investigations transparent and traceable for the court's internal use, while protecting the fairness of trial. The diary lets a judge see the chronology and reasoning of an investigation without turning the investigator's private notes into evidence that could unfairly influence the trial or be misused by either side. It balances judicial oversight of police work against the risk of the diary being treated as proof of guilt or being weaponized to embarrass the defence.
How courts read it
Indian courts have consistently held that the case diary is an aid to the court's understanding, not evidence in itself — a position affirmed in cases such as the Supreme Court's rulings interpreting the predecessor Section 172 CrPC. Courts have clarified that an accused has no general right to inspect the diary, but if the investigating officer refers to it to refresh memory in the witness box, or if the court uses it to confront the officer with contradictions, the ordinary evidentiary safeguards for such situations must be followed, giving the defence a limited, conditional right to that specific portion. Courts have also stressed that the diary should be maintained honestly and contemporaneously, not fabricated after the fact to justify actions taken during investigation.
Common misconceptions
- Myth: The accused can demand to read the full police case diary during trial.
Fact: The law specifically says the accused and their lawyers cannot call for or see the diary just because the court referred to it; only limited access arises if the officer uses it to refresh memory or the court uses it to contradict him. - Myth: The case diary is treated as evidence proving the facts written in it.
Fact: The provision explicitly states the diary can be used by the court only to aid understanding of the case, not as evidence of the truth of its contents.